In the Conflict as Property Nils Christie explains that he believes that society has created a system in which the conflict has been taken away from the parties involved. He used the Tanzanian and the Scandinavian court systems as examples. In the Tanzanian system the parties involved were in the centre, the friends and relatives there took part but did not take over and the judges were extremely inactive. While in the Scandinavian system the courts were not the central element in the daily life of the citizens and it was outside of the territories of ordinary people. The parties do not speak for themselves instead they are represented and the judges are very active in the proceedings.
Christie preferred the Tanzanian model, where the parties …show more content…
He believed that if they victim was involved in their case unlike the prosecutor they wouldn’t get fed up so easily.
Christie talked about a model of neighborhood court that was victim-oriented. It would be a blend of civil and criminal courts that was more focused on the civil court. It has four stages and in the second stage they consider the victim’s situation and every detail legal or non-legal is brought to the courts attention.
Nils Christie brings up the idea of a conflict resolution in where the victim and offender are the ones who work it out without the third-party. He believes that “modern criminal systems represent one of the many cases of lost opportunities for involving citizen in tasks that are immediate importance to them”. However I have to disagree with Christie position on the situation. When conflict arises people are sometimes to emotionally attach and can’t think clearly. They also might not understand the legal proceeding and how the law must be conducted. As humans we are not always level-headed when we are personal involved as the victim. There are people whose idea of taking matters into their own hands turn them into offenders instead of victims. To Christie lawyers are professionally thieves who are “trained to prevent and solve conflict” and because of that they are usually in control of the cases and are following the Scandinavian court systems instead of the Tanzanian system. In most cases lawyers, judges, and juries are the independent third party that can have an unbiased view to the situation and provide a better
Christie preferred the Tanzanian model, where the parties …show more content…
He believed that if they victim was involved in their case unlike the prosecutor they wouldn’t get fed up so easily.
Christie talked about a model of neighborhood court that was victim-oriented. It would be a blend of civil and criminal courts that was more focused on the civil court. It has four stages and in the second stage they consider the victim’s situation and every detail legal or non-legal is brought to the courts attention.
Nils Christie brings up the idea of a conflict resolution in where the victim and offender are the ones who work it out without the third-party. He believes that “modern criminal systems represent one of the many cases of lost opportunities for involving citizen in tasks that are immediate importance to them”. However I have to disagree with Christie position on the situation. When conflict arises people are sometimes to emotionally attach and can’t think clearly. They also might not understand the legal proceeding and how the law must be conducted. As humans we are not always level-headed when we are personal involved as the victim. There are people whose idea of taking matters into their own hands turn them into offenders instead of victims. To Christie lawyers are professionally thieves who are “trained to prevent and solve conflict” and because of that they are usually in control of the cases and are following the Scandinavian court systems instead of the Tanzanian system. In most cases lawyers, judges, and juries are the independent third party that can have an unbiased view to the situation and provide a better